<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Mullane v Central Hanover Bank &amp; Trust Co on Texas Appeals Journal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/topics/mullane-v-central-hanover-bank--trust-co/</link><description>Clinical descriptions of the Texas appellate decisions drawing the most press coverage.</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 07:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://texasappeals.org/topics/mullane-v-central-hanover-bank--trust-co/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Fifth Circuit Panel Enjoins Removals Under Alien Enemies Act, Holding March 2025 Proclamation Does Not Identify an Invasion or Predatory Incursion</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/wmm-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-panel/</link><pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/09/wmm-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-panel/</guid><description>A divided panel held that the President’s fact-findings under the 1798 Act are unreviewable but the statutory labels attached to them are not, and that the findings in Proclamation No. 10903 do not describe an invasion or predatory incursion. Two judges concluded that, on the current record, the Government’s updated seven-day notice satisfies due process; the court remanded for evidence on a sufficient timeframe.</description></item><item><title>Supreme Court Enjoins Alien Enemies Act Removals of Detainees in Northern District of Texas and Vacates Fifth Circuit’s Dismissal of Their Appeal</title><link>https://texasappeals.org/2025/05/aarp-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-injunction/</link><pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 07:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://texasappeals.org/2025/05/aarp-v-trump-alien-enemies-act-injunction/</guid><description>In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluded that the notice given on April 18 was inadequate, and enjoined removals under the Act pending further proceedings. The opinion states that it does not address the legality of removals under the Act.</description></item></channel></rss>